Not PC

Friday, March 23, 2012

CUE CARD ECONOMICS: Economic Harmonies, and The Miracle of Breakfast

FRENCH EXISTENTIALIST PHILOSOPHER Jean Paul Sartre famously stated “Hell is other people,” and he wrote many books to prove it.

Unfortunately, all he proved to most readers was that Hell is reading Jean Paul Sartre books.

A century earlier his countryman Frederic Bastiat discovered, argued and helped to prove something very different; that other people are the very opposite of hell. Said Bastiat in his own magnum opus Economic Harmonies:

“All men’s impulses, when motivated by legitimate self-interest, fall into a harmonious social pattern.”

This is the big lesson that economics can give to philosophers: that the world is not made up of the “fundamental antagonisms” between people that some philosophers find everywhere,

Between the property owner and the worker. Between capital and labour. Between the common people and the bourgeoisie. Between agriculture and industry. Between the farmer and the city-dweller. Between the native-born and the foreigner. Between the producer and the consumer. Between civilization and the social order.

And, to sum it all up in a single phrase:

Between personal liberty and a harmonious social order.

What economics can teach philosophers (and what Bastiat can still teach economists) is that other human beings need neither be a burden nor a threat, neither a hell nor a horror but a blessing.

This is the greatest lesson economics can teach: that in a society making peaceful cooperation possible we each gain from the existence of others.

What a great story to tell!

TO START TO TELL THIS long story, a story that all of economics really serves to show, let’s begin with a short story—an excerpt, from a short story by a great short story writer: O. Henry. As his characters sit down in their wilds to break their fast with something “composed of fried bacon and a yellowish edifice that proved up something between pound cake and flexible sandstone,” they begin to reflect on The Perfect Breakfast:

Such a breakfast, they sigh, might only be possible in New York. "It's a great town for epicures.” As is virtually every city. We take for granted now that in virtually every cafe in every city in the country we can sit down to the perfect breakfast. We reach over to Brazil or Kenya for our coffee and down to Christchurch for our mushrooms and rolls; to Pokeno, or Vermont, for our bacon and head further down to the Waikato to dig a slice of butter out of a Te Rapa urn and then turn over a beehive near a manuka patch in Nelson for our honey.

This is the Miracle of Breakfast: that we can eat like the gods for the cost only of a few dollars thanks to the freedom to trade, the division of labour and the 'invisible hand' of the market. And we take this for granted. We take it so much for granted rather than celebrate sharing the meal gods eat on Olympia, we complain if our eggs are too cold.

And we don’t need long arms to enjoy it: we need the arms and minds of other people who are free to produce, free to trade, free to enjoy the fruits of their own labour by trading those fruits with others.

This is the lesson integrated by all of economics: when you remove force and fraud people are a blessing rather than a curse. Thanks be to the freedom to trade, the division of labour and the 'invisible hand' of the market that makes it possible.

This is the great lesson of Economic Harmonies hinted at by Adam Smith, made explicit by our friend Frederic Bastiat, and developed in specific areas by the likes of Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises. Bastiat first noticed it in a visit to Paris. Paris gets fed, he observed, yet no-one celebrates the miracle:

A light we term self-interest. It is this, says Bastiat, that is at the root of all the Harmonies.

Think about it. On our own we can produce barely anything in a single day. If we were to permanently endure self-sufficiency or life in the wilds not only would the meal of ambrosia perpetually elude us, our lives would be one long round of much labour for very little reward. We need others to keep us supplied as we now take for granted—with food, with drink, with iPods, iPads and the very roofs over our head—but how to enlist those others in our aid? Simple: we rely on trade. On voluntary cooperation. In short, we offer them their own profit in return for ours. We appeal to their own self-interest, a point made by Adam Smith in the part of his famous book where he invokes his most famous metaphor:

And so we do. By pursuing our own self-interest, through our production, our trade, our enterprise, we ensure “Paris gets fed.”

But there is no central planner here. That is the second part of this miracle: the “resourceful and secret power that governs the amazing regularity of such complicated movements” is not the result of government planning but the opposite: it is a naturally developed “spontaneous order” regulated by this “inner light” of self-interest and the power of free exchange. That power, that light, “is so illuminating, so constant, and so penetrating, when it is left free of every hindrance” it produces the order we take so much for granted.

This, Bastiat’s great lesson of spontaneous order, was taken up by Friedrich Hayek, observing society relies on the spontaneous order arising out of our voluntary cooperation.

This great miracle can only happen when each of us is free to follow our own road, to make use of our unique knowledge and circumstances to pursue our self-interests, so promoting that of the society more effectually than when we really intend to promote it.

SO WHAT EXPLAINS THIS Miracle of Breakfast then? Bastiat’s conclusion in three points:

Free exchange

Self-interest

Spontaneous order

Or in one idea:

“That the legitimate interests of mankind are essentially harmonious.”

This is the great lesson integrated by economics, if we are willing to hear it:

That human interests do not require acts of sacrifice…

That bettering the condition of one person does not necessitate the worsening of someone else’s…

That one person’s wealth does not necessitate another person’s poverty….

That the creation of wealth requires only that everyone mind their own business and get the hell on with it.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

A shambles

Is there any truth to the rumour that jurors failed to convict Tame Iti and his co-defendants on the charge of involvement in an "organised" criminal group because what they saw of their group looked far from organised?

In any case, after the farcical arrests and trial it's now clear that the hastily drawn up Suppression of Terrorism Act under which the Urewera 20161514 4 were seized and charged is as great a shambles as Iti's rabble, and perhaps an even greater threat to our individual security.

Just as he was about to do some good!

That said however, on the issue on which he resigned he behaved badly: using political pull to help a friend (endorsing her ACC claim on ministerial letterhead) then lying about it afterward (saying he "couldn't recall" if he used the letterhead or not. Yeah right.)

So the minister with a tongue so forked he could hug a tree with it has gone, but ironically just before he was about to do some good.

I trust (but doubt) his successor will proceed to tie up councils, as Smith planned to do. And I hope (without any sense of optimism) that his succcessor will do what Smith never would and proceed further: to gut the RMA.

Both are urgent.

Given my new-found ability to place a curse on cabinet ministers though, perhaps if Smith's replacement proves too recalcitrant I should just offer some words of praise. As unlikely as that might sound.

ECONOMICS FOR REAL PEOPLE: "The very soul of economics..."

Here's the note from our friends at Auckland's Economics Group on tomorrow night's meeting.

Tomorrow, Thursday 22nd, 6pm, Room 223 of the Uni Business School, we begin our first session of four on Economic Harmonies. And in the first of these we discuss the idea at the heart and soul of economics that is so often misunderstood:

Economic Harmonies 1: Division of Labour - The very soul of economics!

* Why was Henry Ford able to produce more cars in a day than any other manufacturer?

* Why is economics founded on 'division of labour'?

* What barriers are there to division of labour? And what implications of these barriers?

These questions and more answered tomorrow night at the Auckland Uni Economics Group.

We come to praise Nick Smith. For now. [updated]

Not just chronically over-spending councils haemorrhaging debt; not just over-stretched councils over-excited about meddling in other peoples’ business; not just councils flush with over-aggrandisement on truckloads of other people’s money; but all councils in the country who, he says, he intends to confine to doing only what councils should be doing.

Now if you were to list the differences between what Nick and I think councils should be doing you would have a very long list indeed.

The reforms, dubbed “Better Local Government” effectively remove what has been widely known as the “power of general competence” granted to local councils in [Sandra Lee’s] 2002 reform of the Local Government Act, which made them responsible for “social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being.” Instead, councils will be given legal responsibility to provide “good quality local infrastructure, public services and regulatory functions at the least possible cost to households and business.”

This ill-named “power of general competence” (clearly an oxymoron when it comes to councils in any case) was always going to end badly because, as many of us said at the time, it overturned the centuries-long principle of that citizens may do anything they like except what is explicitly prohibited by law, whereas agents of government may do only what is explicitly allowed by law. This is what it means to have the rule of laws, not men—a principle overturned by Sandra Lee’s 2002 reforms with the resulting encroachment by cockroaches on things they should never have contemplated.

So bravo then to Nick Smith (words I never thought I’d write) for doing what urgently needed to be done, and should have been done years ago. (One still wonders why, rather than reining in every bureaucracy in the country by doing what Nick promises to do, as local government minister Rodney Hide instead committed all his energy and every part of his party’s dwindling political capital into super-sizing Auckland’s bureaucracy. There’s a story there still to be told.)

But it’s not all good news. The minister still talks about “super” mayors and “super” bureaucracies, twin illusions you would think the reality of Len Brown and his dysfunctional merry-makers should surely have punctured by now.

Monday, March 19, 2012

DOWN TO THE DOCTOR'S: Ron Paul just doesn't get it

Doc McGrath has been reconsidering Ron Paul…

For a long time past, opinion among supporters of free-market capitalism has been divided over the suitability for office of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. I have been a long-time supporter of Dr Paul, if only because of the uncommon sense he speaks on matters related to economics and central banking.

The septuagenarian obstetrician-gynaecologist-cum-congressman has long been an advocate of the gold standard, and of disestablishing the Federal Reserve. He opposes government intrusion into the lives of private citizens by his opposition to the knee-jerk laws that make passing through an airport in the U.S. a harrowing and degrading experience for most travellers.

All good so far.

But I am now convinced his foreign policy would be detrimental to the interests of the U.S. in the long term. For a long time, I used to believe a policy of strict “isolationism”—pulling U.S. troops out of the hundred-and-thirty-something countries where they are stationed in their tens of thousands at present—would be a good idea, especially seeing as how the U.S. is basically bankrupt (and will probably be owned by China a few years from now).

I thought pulling troops back to the continental U.S. would save billions if not trillions of dollars, and might pacify those who resent the presence of United States troops on their soil. But, as many in the libertarian and Objectivist movements have long been suggesting, such a policy would not lead to peace and prosperity for U.S. citizens. Instead, it would be a gutless capitulation to the enemies of freedom and in invitation to them to treat the sleeping giant as a a docile dinosaur willing to accept any indignity. It would not douse the flames of resentment in many of those countries, it would fan them. Such a policy would show their enemies (and on numerous occasions since at least the Suez capitulation has shown them) that the U.S. is a soft touch who will tolerate substantial strikes against its own citizens without any adequate retaliation.

Notwithstanding the fact that the current U.S. government and its chief executive have been to a greater or lesser degree traitors to the U.S. Constitution, like virtually all their predecessors for the last hundred years, the United States still best represents the idea of a secular nation built on the principles of individual rights and liberty.

Despite the betrayal by U.S. politicians of the principles for which many of the Founding Fathers risked their lives, Ron Paul, sadly, does not represent a coherent force for good. He is a deeply flawed politician, with a blind spot in foreign policy the size of Texas.

I read the transcript of a recent interview with ARI executive director Yaron Brook and listened to a short audio clip from 2011, and then knew without a doubt that I had been wrong in my unquestioning support for a man whose foreign policy position amounts to this:

The underlying problem with Ron Paul is his basic motivation: rather than pro-freedom he is primarily anti-government.

Instead of advocating government that protects individual rights, he has given libertarianism a bad name by advocating anarchism, the view that all government is bad; instead of advocating small government and the rule of law, he and his supporters argue for no state and no rule of law. In reality, there can be no freedom when there is no government: look, for example, at the chaos in Somalia, where the rule of law has broken down completely. That is no libertarian society; it is anarchic dog-eat-dog civil war without any protection of individual rights at all.

Yaron Brook says in the audio clip above that he could consider voting for a presidential candidate that wasn't an Objectivist, just as long as they were advocates for individual rights. Whether or not you consider Objectivism to be the best grounding philosophy for theories of individual rights and capitalism—and I happen to think it is—here we have an Objectivist saying that he could support a non-Objectivist as a candidate. I'm not sure Ayn Rand would have been that generous. [Yes, she was; see below. – Ed.]

Free-market capitalism needs a new political torch-bearer. Whether Ron Paul's high-ish profile has set back the cause of free-market capitalism decades, as Brook asserts, is debatable. He is occasionally inarticulate and does, unfortunately, come across as a crazy uncle type. It is surely telling that much of his current support appears to come from pacifists on the left wing of American politics who can relate to Ron Paul's short-sighted and frankly dangerous foreign policy.

While I agree with most if not all of what Ron Paul has to say on Austrian economics, I think American capitalism needs a new political voice and a fresh presidential candidate for 2016. Peter Schiff springs to mind. Andrew Breitbart would have been great. Penn Jillette would be a scream.

Dr Paul's star reached its zenith some time back and is now falling. He should step down once the primary/caucus season finishes, enjoy what years he has left with his family, and allow a more consistently individualistic figurehead to take up the cudgels against both the overt socialists in the Democratic Party, and the utterly revolting conservatives such as Romney and Santorum who give the party of Lincoln a bad name.

A wiser head than mine labelled as "Saddamites" those reluctant to endorse military action against Iran, Saudi Arabia and other nations whose governments nurture anti-American terrorists. How right he was. Ron Paul is a "Saddamite", and I guess I was too. But not any more.

Now that plans to shut Iranian banks out of the world financial markets appear to be proceeding, it could be an opportune time to begin.

Ron Paul was right on one thing: the U.S. Government is not the world's policeman. But what Dr Paul failed to tell us is that it nevertheless has a duty to defend American citizens everywhere from people wanting to murder and maim them. To defend them with deadly and overwhelming force, with energy sufficient to transform wanna-be Islamist martyrs into gas molecules.

Just as it is time for Ron Paul to move on, it is time for the United States government to move on from a policy of appeasement toward vicious crazed murderers, to a policy of dishing out swift and palpable justice to those who threaten American interests with violence. While I have serious reservations over the funding of such a war, I don't think Obama really has a choice now.

Only this time, count me as a supporter of such a just war not as a Ronulan appeaser of Islam. I'm only sorry it took so long for the scales to drop from my eyes.

One cannot expect, nor is it necessary, to agree with a candidate's total philosophy -- only with his political philosophy (and only in terms of essentials). It is not a Philosopher-King that we are electing, but an executive for a specific, delimited job.... we have to judge him as we judge any work, theory or product of mixed premises: by his dominant trend.... If a candidate evades, equivocates and hides his stand under a junk-heap of random concretes, we must add up those concretes and judge him accordingly. If his stand is mixed, we must evaluate it by asking: Will he protect freedom or destroy the last of it? Will he accelerate, delay or stop the march toward statism?

Tip Jar

In America, they tip. In NZ, we shout beer. If you like the service here at Not PC, drop a tip in the tip jar and you can do both.

Recent
Comments

CUE CARD ECONOMICS: Economic Harmonies, and The Miracle of Breakfast
The sad thing is that many people today think all this comes from the directions of a little man in the Department of Making Things Happen.
Beautiful article Peter!

Sandrine
Enjoyable, filed in "Best of Not PC"
Fine post Peter.
what about sartre having said HELL IS OTHER PEOPLE AT BREAKFAST, true or faux? google it
Chicago TribuneWriting in the Atlantic in 2003, Jonathan Rauch made a joke."Introverts are also not misanthropic," he wrote, though some of us do go along with Sartre as far as to say 'Hell is other people at breakfast.'" Jean-Paul Sartre said nothing about bagels, but the Internet has turned Rauch's bon mot into fact.

Mary Schmich was alerted to a piece by Kevin Delaney that "quoted"Sartre's Rauch-written aphorism by Dan Bloom, a Taiwan-based blogger who spotted it in a Times supplement distributed with a Chinese newspaper. (I can vouch for Bloom's interest in this matter; he's copied me on 10 emails that he's sent to the Times and others about the gaffe.)

Schmich called Fred Shapiro, who edited "The Yale Book of Quotations.""Any time you see a quote attributed to Mark Twain, figure that one is false," Shapiro told her. "Similarly with Yogi Berra and Benjamin Franklin." (Indeed, Mike Daisey got a Twain quote wrong when he published his now-famous nonapology.) Schmich writes that one of her lines is now frequently attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt, and that something she didn't write is now often attributed to her.

Schmich warns readers to be wary of online quotes, but you don't have to bother your iPhone to read an inaccurate quote. I live in the Washington, D.C., area, where a mangled quote recently got carved in stone, which is actually kind of a tradition around here.

It's too bad Rauch didn't make Sartre say "Hell is other people at brunch." No one would have ever questioned that.
What a great way to start Saturday: one of your best posts, Peter. Cheers.
Thanks mate, great article. I'll be showing it to my kids to help offset the crazy ideas they are being fed at college, ie: that we can solve the worlds problems with more Govt. and more rules...
Ayn Rand similarly tortured readers in the same fashion as Jean Paul Sartre by euthanising them one page at a time under the guise of so-called pseudo intellect. Death by 1,000 pages.
@Paul, Gregster, Sandrine, Mark et al: Thank you all; you're too kind. :-)

@Paul: One delivered Nausea with Euthatal. The other delivered oxygen with Atlas.
Loved the post!
A shambles
a good dismissal,and thoroughly deserved, the idiot Crown.My God I googled you up on UnPC and met a mad woman, it was terrible
I thought that the Libz supports the notion of the freedom to do whatever you wanted to do in your private property as long as you don't tremble up on others rights? They were playing war games in their own land. Does the Libz now support the notion that doing such activities in your private land as a violation of others rights? Crikey, the Libz are a bunch of incoherent fucktards.
You may properly by right do anything you wish on your property,just so long as you don't infringe the rights of others.

Such an infringement might, for example, be building a machine gun nest on your boundary and pointing its contents at your neighbour; or collecting a stockpile of nuclear weapons while telling all-comers your neighbours should be wiped off the map; or holding weapons training drills on your land while boasting about killing the Prime Minister.

Such things would constitute an objective threat, and are rightly the subject of legal or defensive action.

In this case however the objective threat was unproven--partly because of pathetic, poorly written law, and partly because (fortunately) the defendants were little more than a disorganised rabble.
Just as he was about to do some good!
please Winston hold your tongue now,there is no value to us of your smirk on this ocassion,
What I find depressing is that he is too unethical to be a minister, but it is OK for him to be an MP.
sweet jesus Freekmack, Nick Smith was one of the best Ministers this country has ever had.I am ashamed of John Key, listen here you John Key I am ashamed of you.
ECONOMICS FOR REAL PEOPLE: "The very soul of economics..."
At last, a reason to live in Auckland.
We come to praise Nick Smith. For now. [updated]
Regarding the quoted section:

The Local Government Act 2002 will be amended to replace references to the ‘social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of communities’ (the four well beings) with a new purpose for councils of ‘providing good quality local infrastructure, public services and regulatory functions at the least possible cost to households and business.’

Imagine if central government applied that to themselves. Then, finally, we really would be getting closer to the proper role of government.
"public services". Easy to use that to justify anything.
We all agree that local government in New Zealand has got way out of control and is overdue for a legislative kneecapping, but this Government has done nothing that has resulted in a net increase in freedom and these changes will be no different.
Why don't central govt get back to core services themselves? They prefer to cut frontline police and nurses, yet maintain a PC sexist relic like the ministry of womans affairs! Gosh, we really do need that lot now don't we!
Of course we don't need either a ministry of women's' affairs nor more (or indeed any) frontline police or nurses.

But I'd rather have MoWA - it's much, much less expensive.

Anyone who cares about their family will have private provision for their healthcare; anyone who cares about their property will have private provision for its protection --- that's just commonsense.
Anon...that's nice and I agree....but until we are allowed to keep and spend our own money on those things we are in a bind trying to make that happen...
I agree some of your ideas.Good post.Keep sharing.
All rather naive. I think this sums up the sheer arrogance of local council and they will get away with it too:

"wasne natici" (The successful captcha after 4 times)
Trimming down of Local government Activities to the "nuts and Bolts" of work that is highly visible (roads, rubbish, infrastructure like water and sewage management and so on), ought to mean less politicians to contemplate what when, who, and how to get these things done. I can see my rate take will definately decrese next year since the wider "four wellbeings and waterfront beautification, resurfacing of the bowling club patch, and thousands spent on feasibility studies for art in the parks, costs of propping up Art Galleries and Museum plans, are to be left to "the marketplace". Yay - a rates decrease! (Hmmm - really?) This just looks like a way to take the same amount of money from the ratepayers (which includes rent-payers), and provide more structures....whilst taking no leadership responsibilities for the health and welfare of the people in the cities that we inhabit. Oh well, I guess the community organisations who do help people - will have to source more and more funds via applications to pokie and other gambling Societies! There seems to be plenty of cash in the pot, spent by those who are addicted, those with family and generational social problems, the lonely elderly and other's feeling down on their luck. Will Council's still be the liquor liciensing authority, the granter of consents for pokie/class 4 gambling venues? If so, what responsibility do we want these elected leaders to take to consider and protect the health of the population at large? If not - how much will it cost to make all the necessary subsequent amendments to The Liquor License related Acts and the Gambling Act and other Acts of Parliament that will be affected by the changes to the LGAct? Have any of the "unintended consequences' and harmful impacts of the National Governments intentions to dump the Four Wellbeings, been thought through? People who make decisions for others without recognising their own gender strongholds and privileged positions, contribute to an unhealthy future society and bring more stress to the local ordinary folk in the community.....we have seen via Christchurch earthquake aftermath, how people take refuge in addictive behaviours when they are under stress....I think Local governments are just now getting to the place of realistically using the four wellbeings to the communities advantage. Leave it in place for another five years - then think about alterations. Jenna Nold - Tauranga.
DOWN TO THE DOCTOR'S: Ron Paul just doesn't get it
Suppose that first best is effective intervention that brings liberty to the benighted.

The first best is unattainable by current American military methods, which seem rather better at ensuring the civilian population hates the American military.

Second best seems rather more likely to be the avoidance of foreign adventures than imagining away that any real-world occupation of foreign countries intending to bring liberty and democracy to folks who don't much seem to want it is more likely to bring resentment and hatred than mini-Americas.

Read Kipling. Heck, read Flashman.
One of Dr Paul's arguments for bringing the troops out of those hell-holes is the premise that American intervention was the catalyst for resentment in the first place.

"leave us alone to kill our own"
The point of pulling US troops out of places where they're neither needed nor wanted would not actually be to ease the alleged resentment, but to save billions and possibly trillions of dollars and thus avoid it's slide into bankruptcy. That you and your fellow travellers can't or won't see this is a major reason why I just can't take you seriously.

So what if a few jihadists try to spin it as a victory? The US is a freakin' superpower, it can deal with any genuine threat that does arise.

And stop spinning your war fantasies as being against the "regimes". The cost always falls heaviest on the civilian population. The same Iranian people that you pretended to give a shit about in 2009 would be the ones to suffer, not the mullahs.
@Eric: The U.S. is certainly unappreciated when it send troops to countries that spend years there and outstay their welcome. I prefer the idea of short sharp interventions and then getting out. It's the prolonged empire building after the blitzkreig that costs billions and engenders resentment.

No-one likes foreign armies on their soil for too long.

@Peter: As per the comment above, I believe the U.S. should intervene to neutralise threats to their citizens and then get out. Leave the conquered armies to lick their wounds and reconsider their plans. No-one will thank them for sticking around for another 10 years.

@Frankie: I can certainly see your point, and in fact it was the main reason I sided with Ron Paul's foreign policy for so long. If the U.S. is bankrupted by its foreign adventures, it won't be able to defend its own borders, and that is a major concern I still have. I believe the U.S. should pulverise the countries that support Islamic jihad, and return home immediately afterward, thus lowering the operational costs.
Agree totally. You don't wait until the wolf is at your door. You go out, hunt the wolf down, and shoot it dead so it never comes near your door in the first place.

I'd also argue, as Martin Luther King did, that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, including the United States. Nations left to their own devices will always tend towards statism and dictatorship. Freedom must constantly be fought for anew by every generation.
Sorry that Anonymous was me - Richard McGrath. For some reason the option to provide a name to correspondence doesn't seem to appear on my screen.

Richard
Quick somebody check the Drs temperature. Next thing you'll be embracing this as necessary.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/%E2%80%9Cwe-are-far-turnkey-totalitarian-state-big-brother-goes-live-september-2013
By the way, if Perigoebbels is "a wiser head than mine", then I've overestimated your wisdom considerably. not a mistake I'll make again.
You libbos really are an aggressively murderous bunch at bottom aren't you? Thankfully in libboland you wouldn't have the means to fund a bucket of rubber-bands let alone the nukes you crave. You will therefore not be able to fry civilians in order to free them from their tyrannical leaders who make them wear seatbelts or whatever.
Your piece better be a joke. I'm a recent paid up Libzer and will not be endoring your continued leadership of the party if this is the crap you come out with.
Yep...can't take seriously any so called "Libs" who monger for wars that simply aren't justified by facts.

"War is the health of the state"...ring any bells?
Ayn Rand said that free nations had a right to support the citizens of nations that weren't free but not an obligation to do so.

The problem with American foreign policy is its hypocrisy. You give Saudi Arabia as an example of a country America should "unleash the dogs of war onto" and I agree that it has one of the most objectionable theocratic regimes in the world. Saudi Arabia supplied most of the 9/11 hijackers and most of the Al Qaeda leadership, yet it continues to be one of America's closest allies in the region, with the US supplying Saudi with most of its weaponry and military training. The USA also supported Saddam Hussein until he became such an international pariah they were forced to turn against him. And they supported the Mujahideen in Afghanistan that became the Taliban (who incidentally modelled their theocracy on the Saudi model).

America has learned that you reap what you sow in foreign policy. I think a more moral, more consistent and more isolationist foreign policy would be good for America economically and politically. However, the biggest challenge yet of the 21st Century has to be faced - that of Iran - and I believe if America stands for freedom at all, it must with Israel against the existential threat from Iran.
Wit: if America stands for freedom at all, it must with Israel against the existential threat from Iran

Obama will side with Israel and allow an attack on Iran, or even do it himself, at just the right time to boost his chances of getting re-elected. He's 3 or 4 times more evil than Clinton.

He'll waste another few $bill just to give himself more time to kill what's left of the free world.

Ron Paul is to the left of Obama.
The USA has ended up as the world's de facto policeman & has been it for some time.The problem with isolationism is that it didn't seem to have a proactive stance to defence.With both world wars, the USA was pulled into the conflict after either been attacked or about to be. (The germans were negiotating with Mexico to invade texas in WW1)Also, one only has to look back to the 1990's where they had to step into Yugoslavia to stop the genocides happening because the europeans couldn't decide what to do.
Why did you use Somalia as a counterexample to AnCap?

Good societies require good traditions such as traditions of openness and tolerance of criticism. Somalia lacks such traditions and it is a failure for this reason and not because of some failure of AnCap.

Ancap societies require *more* knowledge and *better* traditions than we currently have. So you aren't going to get AnCap society in a vacuum and you can't get AnCap society by just suddenly dropping government, The only way an AnCap society can come about is by gradual improvement and not by revolutionary change to existing institutions.

Why should we want to transition to an AnCap society? The reason is that, in order to sustain itself, humanity must always progress by continually solving problems. But where there is force progress cannot continue indefinitely because force prevents the correction of errors. Infinite progress requires, therefore, that government by force -- statism -- must eventually end (but gradually).

(note: agree that Ron Paul is bad)
Even if you support US proactive defense activities in foreign lands, it seems to me that there is much room for criticism of the extent, strategy and cost effectiveness. I do see scope for disagreement with Paul on foreign policy being naive and failing to express understanding of the dangers represented by Islamic fundamentalism.However it not quite fair to say the Ron Paul does not primarily value individual freedom or that he is basically an anarchist. He is most definitely a constitutionalist - which is about limiting federal government, not abolishing it. He has stated the he sees the role of government is to protect individual liberties.I'll let him speak for himself in this one of many clips o YouTube:Ron Paul on the Role of Governmenthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vViU7lZPw58&feature=youtube_gdata_player
If Ron Paul is wrong then so was the CIA when they warned US policy in the middle east would cause blowback and the 9/11 commission that cited US presence on holy land and its policies in the middle east, which led to the death of half a million Iraqi children. Maybe Don McGrath just doesn't get it: I note he is using the same argument that kept the US in Vietnam for so long. But guess what? China did not take the place of US and the Vietnamese did not seek revenge on the US: they were just pleased the US was no longer there propping up a tyrant.
calling Ron Paul an anarchist? That's an association fallacy
About Ron Paul, I am with Sally O'Brian on that one.

Sorry but this article is extremely reductive on the US Foreign Policy (o_O) as far as I think military interventions are sometimes a crucial necessity!

To be honest the first reading direction almost gives me nausea. It sounds like we have to choose a camp: it is black or white and we just have to sit on a magnificent palette of grey. This type of 'binary' (no offense) article conveys dangerous ideas, in my opinion.

Also: 'But I am now convinced his foreign policy would be detrimental to the interests of the U.S. in the long term.'

I personally do not think so. My knowledge on that question tends to offer to me the opposite idea, but it might be an incomplete knowledge, who knows. Plus, what about the interests of THE REST of the world?The rest of the world has great resources and great human beings, as we all know. The rest of the world needs indeed way more of non public and non religious schools. This should be the Foreign Policy priorities of the so called democratic countries. The rest of the world needs a bit more of time (and of course help) to fight its own sticky traditional and cultural ideologies to embrace individual freedom (but still a huge work to do at home btw). So the rest of the world certainly does not need a Foreign Policy like the US actual one: it only feeds the vicious cycle of hatred and obscurantism.

FYI the US population represents about 4.55% of the global population (and I won't tell here what is the percentage of American citizen I would call educated, or even freedom ally, not to offend anyone).

Wouldn't it more interesting to look for state leaders to seek for GLOBAL answers and may be GLOBAL policies in the idea of a GLOBAL HUMAN EVOLUTION? And this should be initiate more than ever within the more powerful nations. Let's be the light, uh.

And about the enemies of Freedom, it is not such a difficult job (as many pretend) to cut the grass under their feet, and it should have been done a long time ago, but it has never been properly attempted and we all know why.

Sandrine
All this talk about Western security and democracy seems to ignore the fact that Islam has already seeded and is quite obviously consuming firstly Europe, and now the wider Western world,city by city.Our prime enemy is the "institution" that allows and promotes this invasion.Mara
@Frankie:

1) I have always (and still am) concerned that endless wars on multiple fronts could bankrupt the U.S. and make it incapable of defending its borders. So I'm right with you on that point.

2) There are always civilian casualties in wartime - can you recall a war where civilians were unaffected? I understand what you're saying. In a sense, if those citizens want to avoid becoming collateral damage, they'd be wise to run the Islamists out of their country, and kick out their government if it allows Islamists to settle there.
@Frankie Lee:

If you honestly believe Lindsay Perigo can be compared to Goebbels in any way, then I've overestimated you.
@Hal:

You forgot to mention the cycle helmets in addition to seatbelts.

And I believe the Islamists who brought down the twin towers used weapons slightly more potent than rubber bands... or were the jet engines of those planes powered by rubber bands?
@J Cuttance:

Can you elaborate on the reasons you take such strong exception to the opinions expressed? I have basically said that pacifism and appeasement to murderers doesn't work.

As a libertarian I believe nations have the right to act in self defence when an attack occurs (and to prevent an attack if possible). The degree of force used would have to be appropriate to the level of the threat. Nuclear weapons would be an extreme measure, but if nothing else was going to stop a country like Saudi Arabia from sheltering terrorists, what would you suggest?

I would love to see negotiations result in the Saudis, Syrians, Iranians and Pakistanis arresting the remnants of al Quaeda and prosecuting them. But realistically, can you see this happening?

If there is to be further war, I would want it short, sharp and non-nuclear if possible, with minimal civilian casualties and at minimal financial cost to the U.S. taxpayer.
@Kiwiwit:

I agree with you that the U.S. has been hypocritical and has sided with regimes that are totally averse to individual rights and freedoms for their own people.

Such policy is absurd and doesn't win the U.S. any friends. The Saudis and others use the U.S. for their own gain and then shit on the U.S. when it is no longer useful to them.

The U.S. should immediately withdraw all foreign aid and support for countries who do not protect the rights and freedoms of their people, or who shield enemies of the U.S. The Saudis would be near the top of the list.
Thank Galt that the US does keep the crazies at bay. Imagine the world with these guys roaming free.

Would we we in NZ do? We have no means of defence.

Pitiful.
@Mara, indeed I have no idea about what you are talking about. As far as I am concerned I have spent 25 years of my life in Europe, I know Berlin, Roma, Madrid and London very well. I lived for almost 10 years in one of the worst (according to the medias) suburb in France. And clearly, I have still no idea about those seeds you are talking about. All I know is that some issues those countries are facing have nothing to do with what you are suggesting here.I also traveled to Morocco, Algeria, Egypt and Tunisia and I have an insight of what is really happening there. My own brother has traveled to Israel and Gaza, and I trust what he saw there more than anyone else. One of my closest friend lives in Israel and I trust what he tells he lives.I have also spent 4 years researching and working on those subjects with many brilliant specialists, in urbanism, architecture, economy, sociology, ethnology and discussed them with several political specialists, but I still have no idea about what you are talking about.However, I have read many times in newspapers what you are insinuating, and I have heard those famous theories in many politician talks. But it ends here.

I agree one one point, some people around the world are extremely dangerous, and they should have less power today than what our western governments offered them yesterday. But this is the only issue I can observe here.

Sandrine
Ron Paul is a good christian and he values freedom & constitution above all else. Louis Farrakhan had something nice to say about Ron Paul.